Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by billy99k 265 days ago
The sad thing is that activists from the 60s and 70s crippled the nuclear energy industry, which is the only real way to stop climate change. We would probably be dominating this industry by now and have a fraction of the CO2 outputs.

If an 'environmental activist' isn't supporting nuclear energy, I can't take them seriously and it's most likely just a political group and has nothing to do with actually saving the planet.
1 comments
xlazom00 265 days ago
People are scare of nuclear energy. Just look at Fukushima and Cernobil. People shouldn't ignore that. It is easy to talk how great and clean nuclear energy is. Yes, it is. And then something happen next to your home. I wish that nothing like Fukushima and Cernobil every happen. It was really bad PR for nuclear energy. We need more secure nuclear energy. I do hope that SMR(small modular reactor) don't make any ecological catastrophe.
link
creer 265 days ago
People are scared of all kinds of things. Is it good management to accept that as a reason to paralyze most of the world? (And no, spending all effort on pushing one hobby and stopping the rest doesn't help. It goes exactly in the direction of paralyzing the world. Like "SMR". It wouldn't even solve anything: sooner or later an SMR "NUCLEAR!!!" device will have an accident and then what?
link
bigbadfeline 265 days ago
> People are scare of nuclear energy. Just look at Fukushima and Cernobil.

Looking... and? Compare those to the victims in Bhopal for example.

Safety studies are available and they place nuclear as one of the safest if not the safest energy sources on a TWh basis. Depending how you look at it, nuclear is safer than wind and even solar [1]

With that said, it could be even safer if we focused on the safety of nuclear rather than on killing it.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

link